[9624] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Telecommunications Competition Act of Washington State
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (adam fast)
Fri Jan 14 12:09:44 1994
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 09:07:57 -0800 (PST)
From: adam fast <adamfast@u.washington.edu>
Reply-To: adam fast <adamfast@u.washington.edu>
To: francis@avalle.insoft.com
Cc: com-priv@psi.com, communet@uvmvm.BITNET, nii_agenda@civicnet.org,
In-Reply-To: <9401141513.AA27766@avalle.insoft.com>
On Fri, 14 Jan 1994 francis@avalle.insoft.com wrote:
> How many cable networks are currently set up for high-speed,
> bidirectional, switched transport? That's what it would take to allow
> this kind of interoperation. A cable company does not *need* a
> switched network today (someday, yes, probably; but not now); forcing
> them to install one will be catastrophic to some (many? all?) in the
> short run. In the long run, they'll benefit--if they survive.
this is a good criticism. (BTW, the bill is by no means perfect and we
are revising it as we go along, thank you everyone for your help.)
the /intent/ of the act is to encurage the seamless transmission of
voice, video, and data /in an orderly fashion/. obviously things that are
technically not feasible won't happen-- whether or not they are
legislated. what is important, as you and others have mentioned, is not
to cripple new and existing providers with unmeetable requirements and
large costs, but instead to /coordinate/ the development of
community-oriented infrastructure.
> Moreover, what does this mean for somebody who sells only low-speed
> access? Will they be required to carry video feeds? They're damn sure
> not going to be able to carry them *seamlessly*; any video feed
> transiting a low-speed link will be shot to hell. Meanwhile, the
> low-speed network's ordinary customers will be screaming as their
> stuff is shouldered aside by the torrent of video packets.
however, cable companies that /do/ provide /data/ transmission on their
network would be required to interconnect with lower speed data
providers. and since they are all located at a neutral site, with a
referee (the WAshington State Utilities and Transportation Commission,
which is actually on the ball on this one--) and using published
specifications, there should be few technical and economic problems.
"just" political ones...
in other words, the intent is that companies that transport one kind of
information (voice, video, data) are required to interconnect to other
carriers who are transporting the same kind information. and eventually
all the transport layers are going to go digital, so that any digital
transport service can meet your bandwidth requirements should be able
take your information where you want it to go...
> I can see "required to interconnect to any network that's compatible
> and *interested*"; but forcing all nets to link together will bring
> them all down to the lowest common denominator. I don't want my cable
> service running over UUCP, thank you very much. :-)
again, the intent is to get the nets into the same neutral rooms
together where they /can/ connect if they want to. we are not trying to
legislate away technical barriers, like bandwidth differences. however,
if the interconnection /is/ technically feasible, and one party wants to
buy service at reasonable rates from another transport provider, the
transport provider can not simply refuse-- they have to interconnect.
and again, limited by technical issues, cost of equipment, etc.-- that
is what the commission is there for, as a refeeree.
this bill shares a lot of similarities with a document called
"Alternative Regulation of US West: Toward a New Paradigm," prepared by
Joe Hommel and Tim Sweeney of the WUTC Policy and Planning office. the
bill also shares the same paradigm, which is more or less to focus on
deregulating (avoid micro-managing) data transport providers, while at
the same time working to make sure they all interconnect, where feasible.
if anyone is interested, the document is available on an anonymous ftp
site in text format-- go to:
ftp.govt.washington.edu
/wutc/NOI_ON_THE_AFOR.txt
(jeff and i, the authors of the bill, are not affiliated in any way
with the WUTC. however, it is nice to know that some folks at the
Commission are indeed on our side.)
cheers,
adam
adamfast@u.washington.edu
